| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSDominick Ostapenko,Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Relator Dominick Ostapenko petitions for review of the determination of a senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that Ostapenko's training program was not a qualified Trade-Adjustment-Assistance Program. Because we conclude that the evidence supports the SURJ's conclusion that the program's costs were unreasonable, we affirm. = = == A05-2058 E & I Specialists, Inc., Appellant, and The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, Intervenor, vs. Corn Plus Cooperative, Defendant, Delta-T Corporation, Respondent, Commonwealth Electric of Minnesota, Inc., Respondent, Paulson & Clark Engineering, Inc., Respondent, DeWar Electric, Inc., Respondent. LANSING, Judge In this multiparty litigation arising from three electrical failures in a newly constructed expansion of an ethanol plant, the electrical-equipment installer asserts contribution-and-indemnity claims against an electrical company and its subcontractor, who performed engineering and design services. The district court dismissed these claims on motions for summary judgment, concluding that the design professionals were absolved from common liability because the installer deviated from design directions. Because genuine issues of material fact remain on whether the installer impermissibly deviated from the design, whether the system as designed was safe and suitable, and whether any alleged design deviation caused the electrical failure, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-2529 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: G.F. and J.S.-M., Parents. LANSING, Judge GF and JS-M appeal from the termination of their parental rights. GF asserts that the district court erred by determining that she failed to rebut a presumption of palpable unfitness arising from previous involuntary terminations. JS-M argues that service was defective and that the court erred by terminating his rights based on a ground not alleged in the petition. We affirm the district court's termination of GF's parental rights because she failed to present affirmative evidence of her ability to parent. We also affirm the court's exercise of jurisdiction over JS-M because he waived service. We reverse and remand, however, the termination of JS-M's parental rights because it is based on a ground not alleged in the petition. = = = = A06-143 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. J. R., Parent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant L.J.R. challenges the district court's termination of her parental rights to her son, J.R., arguing that the record does not support the district court's determination that (1) the county made reasonable effort at reunification and rehabilitation; (2) appellant has substantially, continually, and repeatedly refused to comply with her parental duties; (3) appellant is palpably unfit to parent; (4) the child is neglected and in foster care; and (5) termination of appellant's parental rights is in the child's best interests. We affirm. = = = = A05-1871 Lillie McJimsey, Relator, vs. Dolphin Industrial Staffing, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Relator challenges the senior unemployment-review judge's decision that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator argues that she should not have been deemed to have quit her employment because under Minn. Stat. ? 268.095, subd. 2(d) (2004), the job assignment was not suitable for her, and she did not complete it. Because there is no evidence in the record to conclude that the job was suitable and completed, we reverse. = = = = A05-2345 Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., Respondent, vs. Kermit J. Erickson, defendant and third party plaintiff, Appellant, vs. Betty Marie Erickson, third party defendant, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge On appeal from the district court's dismissal of respondent's action to recover credit-card debt from appellant, appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his earlier motion to strike under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.06 and in dismissing the case without awarding costs pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 549.04 (2004). Because respondent had a sufficient evidentiary basis for its claims and because appellant never requested costs in the district court, we affirm. Appellant moved this court to strike portions of respondent's brief and appendix; that motion is granted in part and denied in part. = = = = A05-2240 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Michael Kenneth Stringer. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's indeterminate civil-commitment order on the grounds that (1) he does not meet the statutory criteria for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person; (2) civil commitment violates his rights to due process, equal protection, and a jury trial, and his right against double jeopardy; and (3) the civil-commitment statute is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm. = = = = A05-1860 Ellen Feuling, et al., Appellants, vs. The City of Plymouth, Respondent, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, et al., Defendants. MINGE, Judge Appellants challenge the dismissal of their claims arguing that the doctrine of discretionary immunity and the statutes of limitations and repose in Minn. Stat. ? 541.051 (2004) do not bar their claims. We affirm. = = = = A05-2426 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. B., Parent. MINGE, Judge On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant-mother argues that (a) Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201, subd. 11(d)(3)(i) (Supp. 2005) does not apply to this case; (b) Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201, subd. 11(d)(3)(i) (Supp. 2005) violates the constitutional separation of powers and the court's inherent authority to act in the best interests of children; and (c) termination of mother's parental rights is not in the children's best interests. Because the record supports the district court's determinations regarding the termination of mother's parental rights, we affirm the termination. Because the district court based its refusal to put the children in long-term foster care on the children's best interests, rather than limits on court discretion imposed by Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201, subd. 11(d)(3)(i), we do not decide whether the 2004 or 2005 version of the statute applies here. Nor do we decide whether the statute violates the constitutional separation of powers. = = = = A06-267 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Donald C. Bostic WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges his involuntary recommitment as a mentally ill person under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.13, subd. 1 (2004), arguing that (1) recommitment requires proof of recent behavior indicating a risk of harm to oneself or others; (2) serial recommitments without proof of recent behavior demonstrating danger to oneself or others violate due process; and (3) the district court improperly rejected voluntary case management as a less-restrictive alternative. We affirm. = = = = = A05-1957 In re the Marriage of: Steven Thomas Hennek, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Margaret Giles Hennek n/k/a Margaret Frances Giles, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Appellant-father Steven Thomas Hennek challenges the district court's order directing that E.H., the child of Hennek and respondent-mother Margaret Frances Giles, attend school in Giles's district of residence rather than Hennek's. Because the district court's findings are inadequate to permit appellate review of its decision, we reverse and remand for particularized findings. = = = = A05-1749 William Edward Bieloh, et al., Appellants, vs. First National Insurance Services, Respondent. ROSS, Judge This case arises from a head-on automobile collision between a vehicle stolen from the "Moondance Jam" music festival and a vehicle heading to that festival. In this appeal from summary judgment on negligence and breach of contract claims, appellants argue that the district court erred by ruling that a Miller-Shugart agreement shields appellants from liability and prevents them, as a matter of law, from being able prove damages. Because we conclude that the district court's decision that appellants cannot prove damages is based on an incorrect measure of damages, we reverse and remand. = = = = A05-1896 Daniel J. Van Hee, Relator, vs. Dominium Management Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent PARKER, Judge Relator Daniel Van Hee challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) denying a motion for reconsideration after determination that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct relating to the waiver of penalty fees for early lease termination. Van Hee argues that he did not commit misconduct because (a) he had authority to balance initiatives to maintain high occupancy against charging penalty fees, (b) the employer did not object to his practice of waiving penalty fees over a period of four years, during which he consistently received positive performance reviews, and (c) his acts, at most, constituted good-faith errors in judgment not constituting misconduct. Because we conclude that the evidence does not reasonably support a determination that Van Hee was discharged for employment misconduct, we reverse. = = = = A05-2486 Joseph J. Oliver, Relator, vs. Sather Trucking Company, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. PARKER, Judge Relator challenges the senior unemployment review judge's (SURJ) determination that he quit his employment with respondent without good reason caused by his employer. Because the SURJ's findings are based in the record and support the conclusion that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, we affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Lawyer representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
